DISCLAIMER: This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

technical support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its Working Groups or 

Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, draft or working documents are 

not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically marked as such. This document prepared by 

SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical issues.

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

 Presentation Handout

History of Advisory Board Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews 

September 29, 2022 

At the May 25, 2022, meeting of the Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews (SCPR), SC&A was 

tasked to present the history, reviews, presentations to the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health (“Advisory Board”), and outstanding issues associated with ORAUT-OTIB0052, “Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers”

(“OTIB-0052”), and related documents. This document satisfies that tasking.

Chronology of ORAUT-OTIB-0052

ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 00 PC-1: On January 16, 2007, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) revised sections 8.2 (guidance on the determination of 

penetrating dose for unmonitored construction trade workers (CTWs)), 8.3 (guidance on the 

determination of nonpenetrating dose for unmonitored CTWs), and 8.4 (guidance on the 

determination of internal dose) to provide consistent guidance for dose reconstruction (NIOSH, 

2007a). 

SC&A draft review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 00: At the September 19–21, 2006, 

Advisory Board meeting, SC&A was tasked with performing a review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 

SC&A’s review was submitted July 3, 2007 (SC&A, 2007). As a result of this review, SC&A 

identified 16 findings (SC&A, 2011). Table 1 summarizes the 16 findings and their resolution.

OCAS-PER-014, revision 0: NIOSH issued OCAS-PER-014, revision 0, “Construction Trades 

Workers,” on November 28, 2007 (NIOSH, 2007b), to evaluate CTW claims that had been 

adjudicated at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites with existing external coworker studies 

before the issuance of OTIB-0052. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 01: On February 17, 2011, NIOSH issued revision 01 of OTIB0052 (NIOSH, 2011) to address five of the findings from SC&A’s review of revision 00 PC-1. 

SC&A draft review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 01: SC&A issued its review of ORAUTOTIB-0052, revision 01, on July 11, 2011 (SC&A, 2011). As a result of many SCPR meetings, 6 

of the 16 findings identified in the review of OTIB-0052, revision 00, were closed, 3 findings 

were transferred to the ORAUT-OTIB-0020 review, 1 finding was in abeyance, and 6 findings 

remained in progress. The purpose of the report was to determine which of SC&A’s findings 

were addressed by OTIB-0052, revision 01, and to provide recommendations to the 

Subcommittee on the status of the remaining findings. 
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 2 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A’s draft review of OCAS-PER-014, revision 0: On March 16, 2012, SC&A issued its 

review of OCAS-PER-014 (SC&A, 2012). The review of OCAS-PER-014 identified six 

findings. Three of the findings were identified as “conditional” because SC&A was unable to 

confirm data due to the lack of or restrictive access to information. One finding identified 

NIOSH’s failure to proceed with the evaluation of the 977 potentially affected claims, and two 

findings related to unresolved issues from SC&A’s review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 00 

(SC&A, 2007). 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 02: NIOSH issued revision 02 of ORAUT-OTIB-0052 on July 24, 

2014, to add language to the Purpose, Scope, section 7.0, and section 8.0 to clarify applicability 

of the OTIB to CTWs who could have worked for prime management and operations contractors 

and DOE sites (NIOSH, 2014). 

DCAS-PER-062, revision 0: NIOSH issued DCAS-PER-062 on November 2, 2017 (NIOSH, 

2017), in response to the issuance of revisions 01 and 02 of OTIB-0052 (NIOSH 2011, 2014). 

Both revisions to OTIB-0052 added language to clarify guidance for the dose reconstruction of 

CTWs, hence the need for this program evaluation report (PER). 

SC&A’s draft review of DCAS-PER-062, revision 0: On May 31, 2018, SC&A issued its 

review of DCAS-PER-062 (SC&A, 2018). This review identified two observations. 

Observation 1 stated that SC&A could not find documentation indicating that a coexposure 

model was being developed or that a PER is forthcoming for Albany Research Center. 

Observation 2 stated that to ensure that appropriate ORAUT-OTIB-0052 guidance is applied to 

all cases evaluated under planned PERs for the 20 sites listed in table 3-1, SC&A should 

(1) maintain a list of these sites, (2) be informed when the PER is issued, and (3) review the PER 

to assess whether the selection of reworked cases will adequately capture all potential CTWs. 

These observations were closed at the February 13, 2019, SCPR meeting.

Previous SCPR Presentations to the Advisory Board

March 12, 2013, Advisory Board meeting 

SCPR presentation: The SCPR presented “ORAUT-OTIB-0052: Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers,” on revisions 00 and 01, to the Advisory 

Board at the March 12, 2013, meeting (ABRWH, 2013a). 

Summary: The procedure provides guidance for developing a coworker model for unmonitored 

CTWs. The OTIB specifies that CTW coworker external doses should be 1.4 times all monitored 

worker (AMW) doses and CTW coworker internal doses be equal to AMW doses, except for 

Hanford. Ratios were developed based on data from the Savannah River Site (SRS), Y-12, K-25, 

Rocky Flats Plant, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Hanford. 
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 3 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Table 1. 16 total findings from review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, rev. 00

# Finding Resolution

1 Does not address differences in 

doses received by different 

construction occupations.

November 14, 2011 – Closed 

NIOSH added a paragraph to ORAUT-OTIB0020 explaining that for routinely exposed 

workers (i.e., workers who were expected to 

have been monitored), the 95th-percentile dose 

should be applied.

2 The dose databases used are 

lacking significant data during the 

early operational years.

June 2008 – Closed 

NIOSH concurs with SC&A in their July 30, 2007, 

report where on page 77 they postulate a reason 

for relatively low CTW exposure during early 

years of site operations.

3 The dose databases do not always 

identify who were CTWs, and for 

CTWs, what were their 

occupations.

June 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

that the dose databases constitute the best 

available source of information for a large 

population. The SCPR concluded that the issue 

should be Closed.

4 NIOSH did not make modifications 

to the internal dose calculation 

methodology, as they indicated to 

the Center to Protect Workers' 

Rights (CPWR) that they would.

June 2008 – Closed 

While developing OTIB-0052, NIOSH determined 

that a better course of action was to use actual 

CTW bioassay data rather than assumed intakes 

based on air concentration (which was the basis 

for the CPWR discussions).

5 Plutonium and/or uranium were 

used to compare internal CTW to 

AMW doses. What about other 

radionuclides?

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

In Revision 01, NIOSH placed a limitation on the 

use of the internal dose reconstruction portions 

of OTIB-0052. Closed based on the change 

made by NIOSH in revision 01 and SC&A's 

concurrence.

6 Does not address how to determine 

CTW doses at sites that do not 

have a coworker OTIB.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

that for sites lacking coworker studies, the dose 

for unmonitored CTWs is reconstructed in the 

same way as other unmonitored workers with a 

potential for exposure or intakes.

7 Does not address how to determine 

neutron CTW doses.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

(provided in August 2007) that external doses 

were not intentionally differentiated according to 

gamma or neutron doses.
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 4 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

# Finding Resolution

8 All SRS external doses are from 

the HPAREH. Need to evaluate 

other dose databases, e.g., 

Fayerweather, SRSABST.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

(provided in August 2007) that the HPAREH was 

shown to be claimant favorable relative to the 

other SRS databases.

9 Evaluation is based on DOE annual 

exposure report. Need to address 

the MUD dose database for INL.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on SC&A's concurrence that the 

data in the annual reports is equivalent to the 

MUD data for the overlapping time periods.

10 For post-1974 ratio of penetrating 

doses experienced by CTWs to 

other workers in OTIB-0052, does 

not agree with NIOSH 2005 (INL 

epidemiologic study), which 

indicates a correction factor closer 

to 2, and perhaps greater for some 

job types.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on a clarifying statement that 

NIOSH added to OTIB-0052, rev. 01, 

section 5.13.

11 Claimant favorability of OTIB-0052 

approach for INL early period 

internal dose (to 1965) cannot be 

determined.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on the statement that NIOSH 

added to OTIB-0052, rev. 01, section 5.14.

12 The REX dose database was not 

used. Need to evaluate results 

based on the REX database to 

those given.

November 25, 2014 – Closed

In December 2011, NIOSH proposed an editorial 

change to replace the current wording in 

section 6 of rev. 01. The agreed-upon wording 

was inserted into OTIB-0052, rev. 02.

13 The CTW doses need to be 

compared consistently to either 

AMWs or Non-CTWs. Currently, 

different sections perform different 

comparisons.

April 10, 2012 – Closed 

NIOSH demonstrated that this had a minor effect 

on the results (i.e., less than the margin of 

uncertainty for dosimetry programs, ~30%). 

Subcommittee changed status to Closed. 

14 The handling of “missing dose”

needs to be consistent. Currently, 

some sections include “missing 

dose” while others do not.

July 31, 2012 – Closed 

NIOSH demonstrated that the inclusion of 

missed dose had a minor effect on the CTW-toAMW ratio (i.e., less than the margin of 

uncertainty for dosimetry programs, ~30%).

15 No instructions are given as to what 

to do if high or low cumulative 

exposures are suspected.

April 11, 2012 – Closed 

Transferred to OTIB-0020; statement added to 

OTIB-0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that 

certain CTWs may need special consideration. 

(Refer to the discussion of finding 1.)
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 5 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

# Finding Resolution

16 Some construction occupations 

(e.g., pipefitters) receive exposures 

larger than the average CTW 

exposure and may receive 

exposures above the 95th 

percentile CTW exposure.

April 11, 2012 – Closed 

Transferred to OTIB-0020; statement added to 

OTIB-0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that 

certain CTWs may need special consideration. 

(Refer to the discussion of finding 1.)

2013 OTIB-0052 Advisory Board discussions: There was a significant amount of discussion 

about OTIB-0052, in which several Advisory Board members raised the following questions 

(ABRWH, 2013b, pp.107–140): 

• How were the CTW ratios established?

• Is there validity in establishing such a ratio?

• What kind of evaluation quantitatively needs to be done when applying this or 

determining whether to apply this at a particular site?

• Who made the decision that we were going to put construction workers in a category of 

using coworker data? 

• Why are we using coworker data for unmonitored workers, when it appears these people 

should just be put into a Special Exposure Cohort? 

• What is the science behind the 1.4 correction factor? 

• Do you apply correction factor to every job title in the construction industry?

• How it is OTIB-0052 being used, and where is it being applied? 

Board path forward: Since the relevant NIOSH staff member was not available to answer these 

questions, it was determined that the Advisory Board would need clarification at the next 

meeting on how this OTIB is being used. If the approach is being used, then there are further 

issues about how dose reconstructors have interpreted the OTIB and applied the data. 

The next Advisory Board meeting was held on July 16–17, 2013. However, the OTIB-0052 

followup discussion was neither on the agenda nor discussed at this meeting. 

2017 Advisory Board presentation on OTIB-0052 and followup discussions 

SCPR presentation: The SCPR presented the same 16 findings and associated resolutions to the 

Advisory Board at the December 13, 2017, meeting (ABRWH, 2017a). 

Advisory Board discussion: Advisory Board members raised the following questions 

(ABRWH, 2017b, pp. 176–198): 

• General Comment: A side issue was raised regarding the information provided in the 

Board Review System (BRS) for OTIB-0052 was lacking meaningful followup

information, and the BRS could benefit from more clarity and better tracking 

information. 
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 6 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

• Question: It appears there may be a lot of updating to do with OTIB-0052, because of 

coworker models and other related issues that are going on at other sites, such as SRS, 

Idaho, Hanford, etc. 

Response: NIOSH agreed but stated that they will continue using OTIB-0052 and the 

CTW correction factor of 1.4 until other data become available. NIOSH is in the testing 

phase with an SRS draft implementation guide, so that may prompt changes. 

• Question: The finding 8 response from NIOSH indicates that no value is gained by using 

information other than that contained in the HPAREH database. However, HPAREH 

only contains dosimeter data for workers actively employed in 1979 or later. Is there not 

a value to be gained from studying workers who terminated during a period before 1979? 

Response: NIOSH responded that there were discussions on the application of the 

HPAREH to workers who terminated prior to 1979; however, they were not prepared to 

provide details that would answer the question. The Advisory Board requested that 

NIOSH provide a followup regarding previous discussions to clarify this question. 

The next Advisory Board meeting was held on April 11, 2018. Based on the transcripts, 

there was no followup discussion about OTIB-0052. 

References

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews. 

(2013a). ORAUT-OTIB-0052: Parameters to consider when processing claims for construction 

trade workers [PowerPoint presentation to Advisory Board, March 12, 2013].

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/pres/2013/bd-tib700313fc.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. (2013b). 90th meeting, Tuesday, March 12, 

2013 [Transcript]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2013/tr031213.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews. 

(2017a). ORAUT-OTIB-0052: Parameters to consider when processing claims for construction 

trade workers [PowerPoint presentation to Advisory Board, December 13, 2017]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/pres/2017/bd-tib52-121317-508.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. (2017b). 120th meeting, Wednesday 

December 13, 2017 [Transcript]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2017/tr121317-

508.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007a). Parameters to consider when 

processing claims for construction trade workers (ORAUT-OTIB-0052, rev. 00 PC-1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/tibs/or-t52-r0-p1.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007b). Construction trades workers

(OCAS-PER-014, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/oc-per14-r0.pdf 
SC&A, Inc.

OTIB-0052, page 7 September 29, 2022 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). Parameters to consider when 

processing claims for construction trade workers (ORAUT-OTIB-0052, rev. 01). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/tibs/or-t52-r1.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2014). Parameters to consider when 

processing claims for construction trade workers (ORAUT-OTIB-0052, rev. 02). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/or-t52-r2.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2017). ORAUT-OTIB-0052 (DCAS-PER062, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/dc-per62-r0-508.pdf 

SC&A, Inc. (2007). Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, parameters to consider when processing 

claims for construction trade workers (SCA-TR-TASK3-0004, rev. 0). 

SC&A, Inc. (2011). Draft review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, revision 1: Parameters to consider 

when processing claims for construction trade workers (SCA-TR-PR2011-0004, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-ortib52r1-r0.pdf 

SC&A, Inc. (2012). A review of NIOSH’s program evaluation report OCAS-PER-014, 

“Construction trades workers” (SCA-TR-PR2012-0014, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-per14-r0.pdf 

SC&A, Inc. (2018). A review of NIOSH’s program evaluation report DCAS-PER-062, “ORAUTOTIB-0052” (SCA-TR-2018-PR002, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-per62tib52-r0-508.pdf